<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2018 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'<{title}>' => 'Non-separating ranch dressing?',
	'takedown' => '2017-11-01',
	'<{body}>' => <<<END
<img src="/img/CC_BY-SA_4.0/y.st./weblog/2018/06/25.jpg" alt="The ceiling is still in shambles" class="framed-centred-image" width="649" height="480"/>
<section id="dreams">
	<h2>Dream journal</h2>
	<p>
		I can&apos;t remember much of my dream, but I remember a couple parts.
		Most interestingly, I was watching a small row of bush starts from a distance.
		They were false cedar bushes, so young they were like single branches poking out of the ground.
		Two of them uprooted themselves, moved a short distance, and dropped their roots back into the ground.
		I was highly confused and went over to investigate.
		I pulled one of the two out of the ground again, figuring it wouldn&apos;t&apos;ve rooted in just yet and the dirt would still be broken around that spot; I wouldn&apos;t damage anything.
		I was sure I&apos;d seen a clump of dirt attached when viewing from a distance, and that clump no doubt had hid the small root system.
		When I pulled it up though, I found no roots at all.
		It was like someone had broken a branch off a false cedar and stuck the end in the ground, calling it a bush.
		I did some digging underneath and found the partial shell of a mid-sized crab.
		Were there crabs under the two bushes, using them as disguises?
		What were they doing so far from the sea?
		Why did I find a partial shell and not a whole crab, seeing as something had just moved the bush moments ago?
	</p>
	<p>
		I also dreamed of a small wooded area nearby; not really a forest, but four of five closely-placed trees in the corner of the property that when underneath, made you feel like you were in the woods.
		Someone had dumped a bed frame there, leaned up against the fence, and someone else had found it and was trying to move some of the sharper components into positions in which people would be less likely to hurt themselves on.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="drudgery">
	<h2>Drudgery</h2>
	<p>
		Yesterday, it was fully my intent to work on and attempt to complete my remaining written assignment today.
		Getting started today though, I realised that was a bad plan.
		I&apos;m supposed to write a three-page research paper.
		It&apos;s not a job to squeeze into the short timespan I have before work.
		It&apos;s a job to put off until my day off, or until I&apos;m out of other coursework, whichever happens sooner.
		If I&apos;m out of other stuff, I can at least get started on the research for the paper.
		Anyway, I ended up instead completing my second learning journal entry for the week.
		Tomorrow won&apos;t be productive with my Tuesday errands taking the bulk of my pre-work energy, but I&apos;ll have the next day off from work to start and finish the paper.
	</p>
	<p>
		My discussion post for the day:
	</p>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Especially on a shorter story with fewer characters, I think referring to people by their titles helps the reader quickly identify them and their role in the story.
			By mentioning the name of each character at least once, the author avoids having these be faceless characters.
			However, we don&apos;t have a whole novel worth of time to learn who these characters are by name.
			They&apos;re hear for an instant, then they&apos;re gone.
			The author wants us to invest our energy not in these individual characters, but in the short story itself and its message.
			This is further evidenced by the lack of character arcs you mentioned.
			While a third-person narrative can still be used when we want our readers to invest in the characters, in this case, I think it was used again to separate us from the characters.
			The characters aren&apos;t the point, but mere mediums through which the message can get through.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
</section>
<section id="Minetest">
	<h2>The tunnel project</h2>
	<p>
		I&apos;ve been thinking about my upcoming Minetest tunnel project, and I came up with some better ideas yesterday.
		Instead of having two tunnels, an express way and a local branching structure, I&apos;ll just create a single, two-tier tunnel.
		I never wanted or liked the idea of the split tunnel, I was just trying to include all the non-transportation elements I wanted within my structure.
		I think I&apos;ve got everything figured out now though.
	</p>
	<p>
		First of all, I&apos;d mentioned before not needing to build the walls and ceilings as thick as I&apos;d previously planned.
		It turns out I need to build them two-nodes thick after all due to the material I&apos;ll be using: cobble.
		Cobble starts growing moss if exposed to water, so I&apos;ll need an outer layer to protect the inner layer from that change.
		Second, I&apos;ll put the rails on the outer part inside the tunnel with the trees between, not put the rails between the trees.
		This&apos;ll save some space.
		The two rail lines need to be at least one metre apart, otherwise the game will connect them and treat them as one, strangely-formatted railway.
		For tunnel symmetry, that space would need to be increased to an even number, such as two.
		The trees, on the other hand, can be planted where they&apos;ll grow to touch one another and there won&apos;t be any ill side effects of that.
		By putting the rails on the outside, I can push the tree lines together and save two metres of space.
		Next, the rails will be suspended, so they&apos;ll be on-level to transition into the tunnel branches.
		With the space conserved on lower level, there&apos;s actually no reason for the rails to rest on a hovering platform.
		This can be built into the wall, meaning that the wall is actually three metres thick on the lower level, while only two metres thick on the upper level.
	</p>
	<p>
		I&apos;ll need to put the tunnel a little deeper into the ground, too.
		I don&apos;t want non-hub exits directly attached to the main lines.
		The tree farm has become a thing of precision now, and cutting away trees to make room for exits is no longer an option.
		All non-hub exits will need to be attached horizontally to the tunnel, not vertically.
		That means if an exit is requested directly above the main line, a vertical exit will be added that goes one block out, one block up, and one block back, then being right above the main line.
		From there, it can go up to the surface unhindered.
	</p>
	<p>
		I&apos;d planned to mix trees in the lower level of the main lines, but I&apos;m thinking now I might not do that.
		Instead, I&apos;d like to theme each main line segment.
		Four segments will be dedicated to each of jungle trees, pine trees, and aspens.
		The north and east segments (+x/+z) will have jungle trees, the segments connected to the centre of the world will have pines, and the south and west (-x/-z) segments will have aspens.
		I might try to do some sort of theming with the bushes and crops as well, in some way that groups things differently that the trees, so different segments have a different tree/bush/crop combination.
		This is made more complicated though by the fact that jungle tree segments won&apos;t have bushes in them, instead having three crops to a grow light as opposed to the one crop per grow light present in the other main line segments.
	</p>
	<p>
		The trees in the loft of the main line and in the branches will likely be unthemed.
		It&apos;ll just be an assortment of apple and acacia trees and bushes.
		Crops will be present, though in the branches, they&apos;ll be buried from view.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="recipe">
	<h2>Ranch recipe</h2>
	<p>
		I decided to try a couple more experiments to see if I could better understand why my ranch dressing separates but other ranches don&apos;t.
		Last night after work, I bought a bottle of ranch dressing just for that purpose.
		I figured I should use up the soy milk, vinegar, and cornstarch concoction I&apos;d made in my last experiment first before trying anything new, so I just put the ranch in my refrigerator to deal with later.
		Anyway, the plan was to try mixing that ranch, which contains vinegar, with more vinegar.
		If it separated, I&apos;d know that my ranch wasn&apos;t likely fixable without removing some of the vinegar, and with it, the tart kick I&apos;ve been enjoying.
		After all, with less vinegar, when I started out and was holding back more to avoid having too much tartness, I wasn&apos;t dealing with separation, so some vinegar is obviously different than having a lot of the stuff.
		If separation occurred, my next experiment would be to use lime juice instead.
		It&apos;d still be tart, but would lack the preservative qualities of vinegar, which would be disappointing.
		If that too separated, I&apos;d probably give up, figuring that having enough of a sour ingredient to add the level of tartness I want just came with separation as a necessary annoyance.
		I&apos;d just have to keep mixing it every time before I used it.
	</p>
	<p>
		Honestly though, I&apos;m more concerned with my recipe being pleasant for others to use than my own annoyance with the separation, but still, the tartness isn&apos;t optional.
	</p>
	<p>
		Anyway, I was hungry when I got off work, so I bought a bunch of stuff I probably shouldn&apos;t&apos;ve, including a bag of potato chips and some dairy-free sour cream.
		I sometimes mix garlic powder, onion powder, dill weed, and parsley into this fake sour cream to make a ranch-like dip, then eat it with chips.
		I did that again last night, though this time, I also added a little vinegar.
		I had some left over at the end of it, and figured it might thicken up my concoction slightly, so I mixed it into the concoction today with even more vinegar and a little salt, and had some on a salad.
		The stuff was gritty from the cornstarch, but the stuff was okay.
	</p>
	<p>
		After work, I checked on the stuff to be sure it was separating like everything else I&apos;ve tried.
		To my surprise, it didn&apos;t separate, it just thickened!
		Quite a bit, too; too much.
		I&apos;ve added more vinegar, to the point that it&apos;s <strong>*too*</strong> tart.
		If it&apos;s still not separated in the morning, I&apos;ll know one of the new ingredients is helping: either the cornstarch or the sour cream.
		It&apos;s likely the cornstarch couldn&apos;t thicken the dressing without something such as the sour cream to bind to, and perhaps mayonnaise would work just as well.
		This would make sense with cornstarch supposedly being an emulsifier, and was what I&apos;d planned to do originally until I read on the package that cornstarch itself could thicken dips and gravies.
		If it stays unseparated in the morning, the next step will be to try making a batch with both mayonnaise and cornstarch instead of just one of the other.
	</p>
</section>
END
);
